Jump to content

Ssnake

Members
  • Content Count

    20,843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ssnake


  1. I like surprises. That could be a specific event, an unexpected unit, it doesn't have to be a "negative" surprise.

     

    Likewise, I think it's good to give the player meaningful "macro choices". One of the earliest missions I made confronted the player with having to make a river crossing on a tight schedule. But he could discover an undefended piece of the river that could be forded, just outside of his designated battlespace.  Making a quick detour across the boundary would reap great benefits in taking the enemy by surprise and bypass some of the defenses, but run the risk of a penalty,

     

    So the specific challenge for the player was to discover the crucial bit of terrain, and then to decide whether the tactical reward was worth violating/bending the mission orders, and seek the initiative with an aggressive exploitation of a potentially fleeting opportunity. Of course, this is a bit of a one-time trick. You can't do that in every mission, it's not necessarily the best option for replayability (but then again, maybe the location would be guarded at one time, and left defenseless on another, thanks to randomized jump/spawn conditions.


  2. I should clarify that I see absolutely no malicious intent or ill will from Matsimus.

    Also, I do not see him obligated to present our product in the most positive light.

     

    He was given a beta version and "explicit" but apparently insufficiently detailed instructions how to apply a patch that required more than just the replacement of an executable. This is an error-prone procedure which, in a live situation, is impossible to rectify. I do not wish to further escalate the situation, and I apologize if I created the false impression that anything of this was intentional. The responsibility for bad preparation lies at least in part at my feet. I was eager to give you all an impression of what you're waiting for, rather than waiting for another week to hand out a release candidate version rather than a beta that required extensive patching.

     

    Please be nice. Matsimus was just as eager as anyone else to try out the new toy. I wouldn't have chosen a live stream as the first thing to do, but maybe that's why eSim Games barely has 0.5% of the YouTube subscribers that his channel has. If you go live, there's always the risk that something goes wrong, and it was a first time experience for me as well to see Steel Beasts streamed live and being unable to influence the situation for the better. Like many others I tried to make helpful comments in the chat, only adding to the confusion, so I think the lesson to learn is to try relax a bit more in the final days prior to a new software release - on all sides.


  3. 52 minutes ago, Lumituisku said:

    I have tested how the mission is with voices that are added to events, and I liked the results I got.

    It is rather easy actually, and there cannot be that many voices in the end as there cannot be that many events either. 64 is limit I think, if every event would have voice file added.

    64, yes... per party...


  4. They all suffer however from not separating crew and ammo.

    (Like the Leopards.)

     

    From a technological position that makes them about as obsolete or useful as a T-55 - which can still be a big problem if you don't have a proper anti-tank weapon ready if you're confronted by one.


  5. 4 hours ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

    Yeah but this video doesn't have the same intensity as the bad FPS video. This also isn't showcasing the new terrain: terrain is as flat as a pool table and has no clutter detail.

     

    The highlight of this patch is the terrain, yeah? Videos should be promoting the hell out of it.

    I suspect that the video absolutely is comparable, assuming that the reason for the frame rate decay in Matsimus' streamed video is the fact that without the patch applied old particles don't get removed from the queue, and therefore clog the graphics card. That happens with a lot of dust or without; in fact, Grenny's video is probably more CPU intensive than what Matsimus bashed together in his zero preparation stream.

     

    Likewise, as far as the terrain goes, it's a matter of applying proper theme files and picking lighting that helps to accentuate the higher resolution. If the terrain theme has near-zero bumpiness for most of the terrain, it will look flat and the vehicle suspension won't show much activity. Consequently, if there are no bumps they cannot be shaded according to the sun position. And if 12:00 o'clock (or sunset) is chosen as the time of day the terrain won't create much variation in the lighting, as shown in the Africa video that I made a few weeks ago.

     

    I'm not an NDA wielding control freak when it comes to releasing videos past the point where I break the silence. Which means you get the full truth, even if it's not representative of the best possible results, or even downright misleading in a case where a certain patch is not applied as explicitly instructed.


  6. Seems like everybody else is seeing it wrong, then. The colors were specifically chosen to match asphalt, house walls, and bare earth. The shapes are all rectangular as you'd see a lot of sharp, rectangular dividing lines in an urban environment. The size of the patches were designed to work best at expected engagement ranges, and all those engagement ranges would have been well within battlesight range (no range estimation required). If there was an urban camouflage paint job, this was it. Even if it has certain similarities to WW1 naval paint patterns.


  7. White RAL9010

    Blue-grey RAL 7031

    Pale Brown RAL 8025

     

    Straight edges (taped), not airbrushed.

     

    The Tankograd 9001 publication contains camo patterns for Chieftain Mk9/C, FV721 Fox, FV701 Ferret, FV 432/30, FV 432 Mk2/1, and FV434.


  8. I see no reason why an APS couldn't, "in principle", also shoot upwards. Whether a specific system actually does is a different question, of course. But it is important to understand that APSs are no miraculous "force field" from a Star Trek future. They usually reduce the strength of an attacking HEAT warhead by damaging the charge, and potentially leading to a premature detonation which increases the standoff range. But the residual energy of the attacking projectile still requires a passive armor array of sufficient strength, and for the top sector of armored vehicles that is usually not the case. This create a certain limit against what type of top attacks an APS could actually substantially contribute. And that is probably the reason why known APSs - as far as I am informed - do not protect against top attack munitions with hardkill effectors. To the extent that the sensors of the vehicle can identify a threat from the top (a guidance laser, say) softkill systems such as Shtora and Galix create a smoke screen to the top sector as well. The vehicle would still have to maneuver out of its current position, of course.


    1. None of our military customers requested the playable
      • T-55,
      • T-62,
      • T-72,
      • BMP-2,
      • BTRs,
      • Challenger 2,
      • Scimitar,
      • Warrior,
      • M1,
      • M1IP,
      • M1A2 SEP,
      • M60A3,
      • Sho't Kal,
      • GTK Boxer,
      • Marder 1A3,
      • Luchs A2,
      • Fuchs,
      • HEMMT,
      • HMMVW,
      • Unimog,
      • Ural-4320,
      • 2.7t 4x4 Technical-F,
      • M88A1,
      • M901,
      • M577,
      • BRDM-2
    2. None of our military customers requested the new HE model.
    3. None of our military customers requested the new terrain engine.
    4. None of our military customer directly requested the new AI; like everybody else they had isolated issues with behavior in specific situations, but it was our decision to move away from the state machine approach with discrete behavioral rules.

     

    These were all common projects/investments that eSim Games made completely autonomous. The idea that there's an "us" (PE users) vs. "them" (military customers) is corrosive, and absolutely not supported by the facts. Only the profits made with military contracts allowed us to work on the important issues. Without military contracts you would have no Personal Edition, or at least none past version 2.4 maybe. So can we please leave this debate behind us, once and for all.


  9. 27 minutes ago, Assassin 7 said:

    Sorry, should have been more precise about the ammunition . I mean rounds such as APFDS and HEAT fired from a Tank.

    If you believe that Afganit can defeat the HEAT warhead of an ATGM, then why not that of a HEAT round coming out of a gun tube?

    Both have a similar radar signature, the different velocity will require a different timing for the release of the intercept grenade, and of course the defeated projectile will still retain its kinetic energy (like an incoming ATGM).

     

    APFSDS rounds, they are a different issue of course. The way I understand it, the basic idea is to induce a yaw moment on the attacking profile through the interceptor's blast wave. Long rod penetrators work best when impacting with no yaw at all, even 1 or 2° can already cost you a sizable fraction of the peak performance. Combine this with reactive armor that might even be based on cutting shaped charges (as seen on the T-84 "Oplot", FEX) you might be able to cut a total of 10...15% of the long rod's performance, which might in turn be just enough for the (still considerable) passive armor array to defeat the impacting projectile. The APS isn't designed to defeat APFSDS in total, just to help.


  10. Mechanical failures of the loading system in an unmanned turret can obviously not be solved by the crew without exposing themselves. Tactically that means to pull back one vehicle. In and of itself I don't see that as such a big problem, you have similar issues with other malfunctions on tanks with a manned turret too - just not specifically with the gun loading mechanism.

    As far as fragmentation effects are concerned, we suspect that the fragmentation is directed in a cone, and more or less firing from above/forward of the attacking projectile to minimize collateral damage. It may not be entirely risk-free, but in combat, what is?

×
×
  • Create New...